Last
year I took a group of high school students to UC Berkeley to interact
with skeptics. After spending an evening with S.A.N.E (Students for a
Non-religious Ethos), I found myself in a conversation with an
undergraduate student about the existence of free will. She told me that
she recently embraced determinism and rejected free will.

In response to my query about why she changed her mind, she
appealed to genetics, background forces, and environmental factors. In
other words, she believed there is no free will because external forces
determine beliefs. What she didn’t realize was that the justification
she offered for her belief in determinism undermined her deterministic
beliefs. She believed that she had evaluated the evidence and embraced
the position -- determinism -- that is most logical. And yet if
determinism were true she would have been incapable of evaluating
evidence and freely following the logic because all her choices
were already set. Logically speaking, her position was self-refuting.
In other words, she sawed off the branch she was sitting on.

Sam Harris makes the exact same mistake in his recent book Free Will
(Free Press, 2012). He denies the existence of free will, but like this
girl, his arguments undermine this very position. Before offering my
critique, let me briefly clarify his views.

After rightly emphasizing the importance of the question of free will, Harris concludes, “Free will is
an illusion” (p. 5). According to Harris, we are not the conscious
source of our actions and we could not have behaved differently in the
past than we did. He says, “I, as the conscious witness of my
experience, no more initiate events in my prefrontal cortex than I cause
my heart to beat” (9). “In physical terms,” says Harris, “we know that
every human action can be reduced to a series of impersonal events”
(27).

Harris rightly points out that there are three main approaches to the problem of free will and determinism: determinism, libertarianism, and compatibilism.
He then says, “Today, the only philosophically respectable way to
endorse free will is to be a compatibilist” (16). But if determinism
were true, as Harris asserts, why would any position be
philosophically unrespectable? After all, people are determined to hold
their beliefs—whether compatibilist, libertarian, or determinist—by
forces outside of their control. Why would he bother to critique other
positions if the people who hold them couldn’t have believed
differently? In fact, his critique is just the result of chemicals
moving in his brain, so why do they matter? What makes his chemicals
more respectable than others?

Later in the book Harris says that giving up free will (and becoming
more aware of the background causes of our feelings) allows people to
have greater creative control over their lives. “Getting behind our
conscious thoughts and feelings,” says Harris, “can allow us to steer a
more intelligent course through our lives” (p. 47). Do you see the
contradiction? The idea of “steering” a more intelligent course through
life, of course, has no meaning in a deterministic world. On Harris’
view we can’t steer anything! The belief that we can steer our lives is
an illusion. All of our beliefs and behavior are entirely the
result of forces outside our control. In one breath Harris says all our
beliefs are determined, but then in another breath he speaks about
steering the course of our lives. Which is it?

Here are some other brief comments in Free Will that puzzle me.

Harris critiques the idea of an immortal soul as one of the cruelest
concepts in history (p. 56). Yet if his deterministic views are correct
then people who embrace the soul were determined to do so and could not
have believed differently. Why bother to critique then? He might as
well critique water for boiling at 100˚ C.

He says that dispensing with the idea of free will allows us to
focus on things that matter most—assessing risk, protecting the
innocent, and deterring crime (p. 53). He seems to be implying that we ought
to accept his deterministic views for the betterment of mankind. Yet
again, if determinism is true then we can’t change any of our beliefs—we
can’t freely follow his logic since our beliefs are already
set. The very fact that he argues for his position undermines his stated
belief in determinism.

Harris offers a mild critique of conservatives who seem to have no
compassion for orphans or those born with clubbed feet (p. 62). But if
his deterministic views are correct they couldn’t help it. Conservatives
are forced to believe this because of their parents, genes, and
environment (as are liberals). Again, why is he bothering to critique
them?

There are many more inconsistencies throughout Free Will,
but the point should be well stated—Harris argues against free will,
yet all of his arguments rest upon the existence of free will.

Harris raises important issues related to the free will debate, and I
would recommend it to anyone who wants a naturalistic view of human
behavior. But the problem is that he doesn’t take his views far enough.
For example, in the conclusion he says, “The illusion of free will is itself an illusion” (p.
64). He’s right. If determinism is true, then the belief in free will
is an illusion. But why stop at the belief in free will? It would seem
to follow logically that all our beliefs are illusions if
determinism is true. In fact, the belief that “the illusion of free will
is itself an illusion” is itself an illusion…and so is the rest of the
entire book.

Some day, dear reader, you will (if a Darwinist) suddenly realize the complete and utter stupidity of the entire concept both scientifically and philosophically and wonder how in the HECK did you every believe that nonsense? Hope it is soon! Anyway, a word from Christian Thinktank:

I collect cartoons of religious and philosophical themes, and as
epiphanies of segments of our culture, they can be striking in their
force. Consider these two of my favorites...

One cartoon shows two aging "hippie" types sitting at a bar,
commiserating. One is saying to the other: "You know, nihilism just
isn't enough anymore." (I often think of much of western culture in this
image.)

The other cartoon shows a sprinting fellow, face all screwed up in
intensity, with a caption that says "Definition of a Zealot: one, who
AFTER having lost sight of his goal, DOUBLES his efforts." (I often
think of much of religious "funny-mentalism" in this image.)

There are two burning issues for us hiding in these cartoons--the issue of worldview relevance and the issue of worldview truth.

The issue of relevance of a worldview or belief-system can be simply
stated in terms of "does it satisfy?" or "does it add value to my life?"
It may be the most elegant philosophical system currently on the market
today, but if it doesn't meet "felt needs" (apart from some occasional
need for logical consistency and elegance, obviously) it cannot truly be
considered 'relevant'. And, as such, it would be especially vulnerable
to the incisive "What's the Point?" question.

In the specific case of my worldview--that of thinking, counter-culture,
radical Christianity--it meets several 'relevance' needs as a belief
system, but also affords me opportunity to see other needs met as a way
of life.

First, as a belief system, it essentially meets my existential needs for meaning, purpose, and direction.

When I first became a Christian (as a 20-year-old Computer Science
senior in college), I could not articulate my need for 'meaning', but as
life unfolded over the next few years, I felt the existentialist's
agony all too acutely. I remember it well...

I was fresh out of grad school, had a good job in my field, and life had
just 'begun' for me. As I began to live life in the day-to-day reality,
I found that I was confronted with a myriad of choices. Many of these
choices involved ethics, and some of these choices were very, very
difficult and unclear. And so, like many people, I struggled with the
issues. I agonized over my choices. I deliberated over trade-offs. And
then one day, I realized that the mechanistic, Newtonian universe--cold,
bleak, impersonal--couldn't care less about my struggles. That the
cold, universal machine would grind on and on--millions and billions of
years after the race had died, after the sun had gone out, and the last
information trace of me had disappeared from history--and that NO
choices I agonized over would make ANY difference in that outcome. And I
saw, as a new Christian, the horror of the existentialist's
predicament. Without a context that somehow attributed meaning to my
choices--BIGGER THAN THE UNIVERSE--my choices became trivial and not
worth bothering about at all.

And I instantly saw the beauty of my Christian worldview! Here was a
"bigger than the Universe" God who was a conscious Agent, who preserved
all of my tiniest actions, deliberations, intentions, motives, agonizing
choices in His memory, and who was committed to not only allowing my
personal actions to "add value" to the lives of others, but to also
function as a basis for eternal recognition in some "hereafter". In this
system, in which the individual self survived death and hence could
"carry itself with it", there was an entity that survived the death of
the universe--me. All the moral choices that I made in integrity became
part of me--my character--and I get to 'take my character with me when I
die'. All deliberations, however small, now became magnified and
leveraged across a huge span of time and space--and all my actions
flamed suddenly with significance: the quality of my work, the
compassion of my life, the integrity of my heart, the loyalty of my
relationships, the honesty of my mind.

With the "meaning" need met, the "purpose" question couldn't be far
behind. For, if every action had eternal consequences (via the memory
of God and the stream of historical consequences in the lives of other
selves who would survive death), then the "purpose" was rather
straightforward--organize my life in such a way as to maximize the
positive consequences of my choices and actions. Since my actions were
important and significant, then these actions could be leveraged for
either construction/creation or damage/destruction. Thus, meaning became
a foundation for purpose.

"Direction" was a bit more difficult to get to, though. It was so
simplistic to say "I am here to maximize goodness"; it was incredibly
more complex to define "goodness" (!) and to discover some "methods" to
maximize it. The "Church-anity" that I grew up in had all kinds of rules
and laws and prohibitions about my life and thinking, but the Bible
itself was surprisingly non-specific on many, many issues. To be sure,
it warned me explicitly about major issues that would be destructive in
the universe--murder, treachery, deceit, apathy, slander--but expressed
most of the instruction in the way of principles and guidelines. I was
to be 'freed' to act responsibly. Martin Luther's dictum of "Love God
and live as you please--in that order" was such a good summary of New
Testament "law."

It is not an accident that the Greatest Commandment (according to Jesus,
in Matt 22.37) was to LOVE GOD--to foster a personal relationship with
another Agent! It was not "Thou shalt" and "Thou shalt not", but to
enjoy and communicate and to try to please and to share with this
meta-Person.
But the core content of "direction" turned out to be the imitation of
the love and character of Christ, as he lived on earth. His character
and life was a wild, swirling mixture of compassion, confrontation with
the religious establishment, an almost riotous celebration (e.g. He was
accused of being a "party animal" in Luke 7.34!), practical teaching,
personal and private communion with His Father, community care, and
personal destiny. The more I learn about Him, the more "direction" I
get.

Now, the words "meaning, purpose, and direction", although important,
are nevertheless only a subset of my needs. I need more than to 'feel
good' inside about the choices I am making and the significance of the
values they represent. I also need to experience things outside of my
self. I need to experience uniqueness and I also need to experience sameness.
I need to be a part of a community of peers, and yet to be unique
within that group. And the Christian community, historically considered,
creates the setting in which this can be experienced.

This is surprisingly important. If God had only delivered a system of
propositions to believe, then I theoretically could "get by" with never
having to interact with another human being--and thereby miss the
opportunity to help and be helped by others; the opportunity to
experience community. But instead, He created a community (by His
occasional interventions in history: e.g. Moses, Jesus), and also
created me with a "pull toward" social interaction with this community.
In other words, I am "built" to need participation in community. The
psychological and social sciences have amply demonstrated that my
membership in a peer group, and a significant role within that peer
group are essential to my personal well-being.

This historical community is highly flawed (as most of you have NO NEED
for me to tell you!), but there is nonetheless a cadre of individuals
within it (and sometimes peripheral to it) that demonstrate the
"direction" discussed above. They live out the Second Greatest
Commandment--"Love your neighbor as yourself". It is easy to discount
religion in western culture because of its 'bad apples'; it is much more
difficult to "explain away" the extraordinary lives of those core
disciples of Jesus Christ throughout history.

Consider the early, pre-Constantine church for a moment. The "relevance"
of the Christian faith for members of the Roman empire was an increase
in lifespan of around 20 years! A recent book by a sociologist (Rodney
Stark, The Rise of Christianity--A Sociologist Reconsiders History,
Princeton: 1996) argues that the Christian faith "took over the Roman
Empire" by the sheer survivability of its members. The difference that
basic Christian community service made during the frequent plagues; the
difference in mortality rates among females who were not forced to marry
15 years early, nor forced to undergo abortions; the difference in
population growth afforded by anti-infanticide praxis; the difference in
cross-cultural harmony during periods of tremendous urban chaos--these
were the factors that contributed to a much longer lifespan for
individual Christians of the day! "Relevance" could be measured in years
and decades.

[Today, of course, these differences have been "appropriated" by western
culture, and so this aspect of relevance is not as noticeable. In
certain disadvantaged situations (e.g. homeless shelters, famine relief,
missionary education), however, it can still be seen quite easily.]

At this point in my argument, I internally feel a knee-jerk response.
The Christian commitment to ruthless honesty and struggle against
humanity's general tendency toward self-deception(!), reminds me of a
childhood fairy tale that struck fear and horror into my heart as a
child--the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.

If you remember the story, the vain Emperor is dissatisfied with various
attempts by tailors at a new wardrobe, but eventually falls prey to his
vanity and self-deception. He dresses up in these invisible clothes and
parades around naked in the town, firmly convinced that he is
completely splendid in his appearance.

As a child, I tended to be over-sensitive to the criticisms and opinions
of others, and so this simple story always functioned as a prophecy of
doom for me! I always anticipated getting laughed at behind my back
because my personal appearance or lack of fashion sense was acceptable
to me, but a source of disapproval by others. This was an extreme
position, of course, but what it did help me with was to develop a
rather radical self-critical facility about the things I believed in.
Granted, it made me more skeptical that I probably should be, but this
has had many positive effects in my life.
So, when I get to the end of my above argument that the historical
Christian worldview "meets my needs", I personally cannot escape from
the next burning question--"Yeah, but is that just a rationalization, or
it is REALLY true?" Are my beliefs 'really there' or am I simply
parading about naked?!

Curiously, this "objection" about Relevance vs. Truth has been fading
away in our culture over the last decade or so. I have been an active,
thinking, vocal disciple of Jesus Christ for some 25 years now, and
fewer and fewer people raise this issue. As I reflect upon this, I
detect a pattern of more honesty on the part of the younger generation. I
detect less arrogance about their self-determination, about their
ability to control their own destinies, about their ability to overcome
personal limitations through 'self-help' campaigns. Their optimism is
much more guarded, and their pessimism is much less severe. They
possibly recognize that their needs JUST MIGHT BE clues to guide them on
a search for answers.

And these needs CAN be helpful as "clues". I NEED to use my mind some,
so systems of thought that essentially tell me to "cut off my head"
(e.g. Zen, some flavors of Eastern thought, some brands of mystical
Christianity) can be ruled out quickly. I NEED to love and be loved, so
systems of thought that are rigidly "duty"-obsessed (e.g. some versions
of Islam, some forms of Tantrics), have less viability. I NEED to be
active in community experience, so systems that require me to hide in a
monastery, take vows of silence for years, or generally constrict my
interaction with the concrete world (e.g. various ascetic or monastic
movements--both Eastern and Western), will probably not make the "short
list" of candidates. I NEED to be recognized as a significant self, so
systems of thought that deny my irreducible personality/consciousness
(e.g. some groups in Buddhism, materialism) seem to offer less potential
for fruitfulness. I NEED some level of "operational and metaphysical"
simplicity (cf. Jesus in Mt 11.28-30 or Micah 6:8 in the Old
Testament--"He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the
LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly
with your God."), so systems involving hordes of deities, sub-deities,
levels of spirits, "guides", elaborate systems of laws and ritual (e.g.
several forms of Hinduism, most New Age movements), just cannot be the
best place to look first. These needs can function as clues to a certain
extent.

But I am of different age and ilk. And for me, as a science-oriented,
periodically obsessive-compulsive, technology-dependent, US citizen
living in Silicon Valley, and working in the high tech industry
segment...I am STILL concerned about touching/seeing the fabric on those
trousers!
Fortunately for me, I live in a period of time where the basic truth
claims of the classic Christian position are becoming easier to believe
and in many cases, to authenticate.

We know from sociology that cults originate and initially develop among
the intelligentsia and the elite. Christianity was no exception to this
in the early days of the Roman Empire. It was considered a "cult" by the
non-Christians of the day, and spread initially (outside of Palestine)
among the urban elite. Strangely enough, we are seeing the beginnings of
such a pattern in Western culture, albeit in an implicit form. Consider
the following trends and perspectives in modern research and thought:

1. Naturalism is showing signs of giving up trying to reduce human
consciousness to materialism. Witness the rise of interdisciplinary
research and dialogue between neurobiologists, cognitive scientists,
computational linguists, mystics, theologians, philosophers of mind (as
exemplified in the Journal of Consciousness Studies). We seem to
be stuck with the fact that we are 'persons'! We are irreducible
agents, we have minds, we have volition, we have limited power to alter
nature (e.g. psychosomatics). Modern Christian claims about the "soul"
(of which one aspect is "mind") are not as taboo as they once were.

2. The universe just lost the title of "All there is"! The work in
quantum particle research has eventuated in general acceptance of the
"existence" of "virtual particles". In other words, for every REAL
particle (i.e. in the universe), there are teeming hordes of VIRTUAL
(read: "un-real") particles which interact with it. The universe has
suddenly become only a tiny part of a bigger (and unseen) reality. The
Christian has always maintained this. [For a basic introduction to these
virtual particles, see Robert Gilmore's Alice in Quantumland (Copernicus/Springer-Verlag: 1995) or Bruce Gregory's Inventing Reality--Physics as Language (Wiley: 1990).]

3. Depending on your cosmogeny orientation, the research into the Big
Bang equations that made Stephen Hawking more recently decide that there
might be an Intelligent Designer (e.g. Brief History of Time,
Bantam:1988, pp. 122, 175), may also influence you to open up to such a
possibility. Or the Anthropic Principle, that the universe is apparently
"fine-tuned" to support the existence of the tiny group called "humans"
on a tiny planet called "Earth", may confront you with your real
significance to an Intelligent Other! [See Evidence of Purpose--Scientists Discover the Creator, edited by John Marks Templeton (Continuum:1994).]

4. There is a huge resurgence of "faith-friendly" academic philosophy.
Thomas Morris, past Professor of Philosophy at Notre Dame, describes the
difference between his first philosophy course and the situation of
today (in God and the Philosophers, Oxford: 1994, p.5; see also Philosophers Who Believe ed. by Kelly James Clark, IVP:1993 for similar autobiographical accounts.):

Everyone in the room was affected by these announcements of such a
personal nature, coming as they did from a person not otherwise inclined
to engage in autobiographical revelation (i.e. his first undergraduate
philosophy Prof--a vocal atheist). We were led to believe, and much
subsequent experience in the study of twentieth-century philosophy
seemed to confirm, that the best modern philosophers had no patience
whatsoever with that old-time religion of our up- bringing. Philosophers
in our time, it was easy to conclude, had utterly dismissed the
existence of God, along with such other nonsense as faeries, ghosts,
goblins, and elves...

This seems to be the general impression held by most relatively
well-educated people in America today. Philosophers are assumed to be
enemies of faith. Reason and religion are thought to be diametrically
opposed. What many people, even within academic circles, do not
realize is that there have been tremendous changes within the world of
philosophy over the past couple of decades. In that short time, we have
seen a dramatic and unexpected resurgence of religious belief and
commitment taking place among the ranks of some of the most active
practitioners and teachers of philosophy on college and university
campuses all over America, a development found extremely perplexing by
many onlookers.

More than a decade ago, for example, a professional organization was
formed by several senior members of the American Philosophical
Association as a sort of support group for Christian philosophers, who
at the time were increasing in number and prominence, and yet were still
clearly swimming against the main currents of philosophical thought in
our time. Since its inception, this organization, the Society of
Christian Philosophers, has grown to about 1,000 active members and has
launched a professional journal, Faith and Philosophy, that in the years of its existence has become a focal point for exciting new philosophical work on religious topics.

Part of these advances have been due to the academic onslaught that has
reduced the theoretical aspect of the 'problem of evil' (see Reason and Religious Belief
by Peterson, Hasker, Reichenback, and Basinger, Oxford: 1991.), and by
major strides in religious epistemology (by Platinga, Alston,
Swinburne).

5. Historical research and archeology are increasingly and consistently
confirming the accuracy and authenticity of the biblical record. Every
new dig in Israel, every new manuscript discovery, every new historical
reconstruction of biblical life seems to authenticate previously
disputed passages of scripture. Historical figures that supposedly were
fabrications are found in ostraca (e.g. David, Balaam). Historical sites
that didn't exist are located in literary records (e.g. Nazareth).
After-the-fact dating of prophecies are being overturned by discovery of
manuscripts that pre-date the foretold events (e.g. Daniel at Qumran,
Destruction of the Temple in pre-70 AD manuscripts.) The whole biblical
scholarship world (apart from specialty fringe groups, such as the Jesus
Seminar) is becoming more conservative in its understanding of the
events of Jesus' life and in the historical reliability of the New
Testament documents (see The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg, IVP: 1987 for a recent re-cap of the data and trends.).

This movement is in part due to the recent involvement by Classicists,
such as Richard Burridge, Loveday Alexander, A.N. Sherwin-White, in
research in the New Testament documents, and by the 'controlling data'
of archeological/historical results--e.g. reported by Richard Horsley,
Wayne Meeks, Bruce Chilton, Harry Gamble. [For bibliographical
information, see my "Books" section in my web site: http://www.christian-thinktank.com.]

For me, as a committed "Christian Skeptic," these trends are
fascinating. I personally investigate many of these issues--to test the
"fabric" of course--and find real change going on. The arrogance of 50
years ago is melting, and an openness to God seems to be a by-product of
the thawing of our hearts.

I am a member of the Library of Science bookclub, and as such, I receive
the monthly offers of new science books. One of the selections recently
had a fascinating title: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age.
It contains the 'confessions' by a number of great scientists, with an
honest expression of "fearful intimations of the end of the great
quest." The answers to the big questions will not be forthcoming from
that arena.

Does this mean that I can 'prove God'? Or that there are no major
problems within the Christian worldview? Or that the Church is not a
constant embarrassment to the Living God? Of course not.

To my personal frustration, God doesn't seem to be interested in public
displays of His power, or in doing circus-like tricks to get our
attention, or in re-configuring our heads so that we can universally
come to full consensus on some theistic argument. His basic modus operandi is
" You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
(Jeremiah 29.13). He gives us hints, and data, and even a book of His
actions in history. He affords us many good arguments (e.g. fulfilled
prophecy), and special events in history (e.g. Exodus, Jesus' appearance
and resurrection). We develop wonder at the elegance of the
mathematical structure of the universe, are moved by the experience of
interpersonal bonds, we sense that 'something more' is available and
beckoning to us.

But in the final analysis, we are personal agents as He
is, and we must act as agents--and not as automatons. He seeks lovers,
not lathes. We have adequate--but not necessarily conclusive--reasons to
believe in His existence, His appearance and involvement in history,
and in His desire to become constructively and meaningfully involved in
our lives. He has a purpose also--and it includes "adding value" to
those who want more. The intensity of this desire and purpose becomes
apparent at the Cross: Out of love and desire for communion with humans,
God becomes a man and takes upon Himself the future judicial
consequences of our less-than-righteous lives, creating an environment
in which God can be approached freely--in history. Jesus' words in John
10.10, often quoted but generally skirted over by Western culture,
should be seen for the payload they really carry: " I have come that
they may have life, and have it to the full."

So, what's my point?

Basically, that the modern situation has highlighted both our need for a
bigger-picture worldview, and that one candidate for that coveted
spot--historic and radical Judeo-Christianity--offers great promise in
meeting both the existential-personal needs, as well as satisfying our
deeply-rooted need to escape wishful thinking in this area. It makes
demands upon our honestly and humility, but offers much to our time in
history, as it has throughout the ages.
That's the end of the draft of the article. Let me make three comments about the content.

1. The article was supposed to deal with the issue of relevance (I was
contacted by the editor and invited to submit an article around that
topic). As such, I didn't go into all the arguments/data I consider
valid as bases for justification of my 'belief' in my Living and Loving
Lord.

2. The reference to the Anthropic Principle needs a brief comment. I
personally don't 'need it' to be convinced the universe was structured
for a multi-faceted, part-spirit/part-matter, conscious/sensate agent
such as I am. All I have to do is experience cinnamon, scarlet, a gentle
breeze, an unfolding sunset, the feel of cool water, the sound of a
harp, warmth of a fire, the tang of mustard, the loyalty of a pet, the
smell of fresh clover, the looks of lovers, honeysuckle, the smile of an
infant, the sound of gentle rain on a hot summer day, red-ringlet hair,
the clarity of the stars, the brooding of the ocean, a laugh, tears at
reunions, wildflowers, the touch of silk, full moons in the Fall--to
know that this universe, in its blazon of glory and robustness, was
created with my full and joyous participation in it planned from the
start!

[I will have to analyze and explore this Principle later in the
Tank--several philosophical objections and issues have arisen from
visitors about it--quite apart from its presupposition of some version
of a "big bang" cosmogeny.]

3. The references to Hawking's position are NOT to imply that he accepts
the God of the Bible, by any means. He does emphatically deny the label
"atheist", and his conception of God is generally "deist" (i.e. God
"wound the universe up" and set it spinning with its laws, never to
intervene), but my point in the above concerns the common point between
theism and deism--the Designer issue.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The article above was written before Hawking "came out" and did away with God in his own mind and in public with his last book, the ironically named "The Grand Design." I wonder if Hawking doesn't need what M. Night Shyamalan really needed before making "Lady In The Water." Someone to tell him,"Uhm, NO!!!"Now Hawking is exposed as more zealot than scientist.When you think gravity was self-existent but God could not be? Wow! Hawking believes philosophy has not kept up with science. In fact philosophy is basic to science and science is built upon philosophy. It only goes to show you that high intelligence does not equal wisdom, eh?

Afghanistan needs a Commander in Chief!

Quote of the Day

TheReligionofPeace.com

Contributors

The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.Francis Maitland Balfour

The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas – a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated — Ronald Reagan

Stop ENDA!

What is the network dealio?

Professional contact information

Please email radarbinder@comcast.net to contact me professionally. I consult and sell software, hardware and services to companies, organizations and government entities throughout North America.

Support Patriotic Resistance!

Welcome to Patriot Action Network 2.0!

Followers

Creation.com

The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity.Francis Maitland Balfour